Almost 15 years ago, conservative political forces erupted in fury when columnist Andrew Bolt was convicted of contravening section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act over a series of newspaper columns that allegedly offended Aboriginal groups.
The hitherto obscure 1995 provision made it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate another person or group of people because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin”. That same law was used to drag the late great Bill Leak’s name through the mud over a series of supposedly offensive cartoons in this newspaper.
Calls to abolish 18c rang out across the land. From Voltaire to John Stuart Mill, there were a flurry of quotes pointing out that free speech, however odious, was a fundamental human right that should underpin Australian society. If you’re offended, toughen up. The law can’t be based on feelings, the arguments went.
The campaign revved up again amid ludicrous accusations of racism at Queensland University of Technology following the barring of three university students from an “Indigenous space” on campus. Thankfully, that 18c case failed.
All the arguments in favour of free speech and against 18c were as laudable and correct then as they are now. So-called hate speech laws are infantilising and deny human agency. Inciting violence is a separate matter, dealt with under separate laws with much stricter legal tests.
Yet I won’t be holding my breath for conservative political forces to mount a principled defence of the contemptible preacher Wissam Haddad, who this week was convicted under 18c for making “disparaging imputations about Jewish people” in a series of lectures in Bankstown in 2023.
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist,” wrote Salman Rushdie. The last few years reveal just how few genuinely believe in that principle. Free speech must include the right to speech most of us find repugnant. It can’t only be free speech for political allies. With the exception of NSW Libertarian John Ruddick, where is the soaring defence of former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis, who is facing possible trial under 18c for posting on social media a speech made by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, along with some severe criticism of Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza?
The tragedy of October 7 and the ensuing conflict in the Middle East has highlighted a censorious streak among conservatives who are understandably sympathetic to Israel, the only democracy in the region. Yet cancel culture seems to thrive among certain conservative sections.
ABC journalist Antoinette Lattouf was cancelled following a fusillade of complaints against her from Jewish groups after she posted on Instagram a Human Rights Watch tweet that alleged Israel was using starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world would have already seen the incendiary tweet.
US podcaster Candace Owens was barred from entering Australia last year over allegations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and this week rapper Kanye West met the same fate for producing a deliberately provocative song which anyone in Australia could listen to online.
“We have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry,” said Immigration Minister Tony Burke. Indeed, Australia has for decades been importing hundreds of thousands of people from Middle Eastern countries who vehemently hate Israel.
The c-grade rap duo Bob Vylan, who most people had never heard of until this week, has had concerts cancelled by organisers in France, Britain and Germany, while the US refused to issue him a visa over his chanting “death to the IDF” at the Glastonbury music festival.
It was a stupid comment, but why should we take him seriously? How does it differ from anti-Vietnam War protesters and celebrities in the 1960s, who routinely vilified the US military as murderers, rapists and baby killers at public events?
“Speech has consequences,” Vylan’s conservative critics would say, deploying precisely the same arguments the left makes when it seeks to destroy individuals’ lives over allegations of homophobia and racism.
Of course some supporters of 18c – even those who see it as a crutch with which to attack their political opponents – mean well, but it’s far from clear that the law improves social cohesion.
Perhaps tens of thousands more Australians have read Haddad’s disgusting views than otherwise would have; had no court case emerged, the fringe cleric’s racist tirades would’ve remained at Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown, where he delivered them, perhaps shared online by a few hundred of his bigoted followers.
Equally, does anyone seriously think Haddad’s conviction has prompted a change of heart by him or his followers? In fact, it’s probably hardened their hateful views, which they’ll now promote more vigorously in private. In the case of Bob Vylan, they’re more famous than they could have dreamt.
In their understandable and noble desire to defend Israel, conservatives should be careful what they wish for. Following a burst of anti-Semitic acts earlier this year, the federal, Victorian and NSW parliaments ushered in a string of new “hate speech” laws to protect politically favoured groups with barely a murmur of conservative dissent. When tensions in the Middle East subside, these laws will become an even more powerful tool to attack conservatives in the courts, which has long been their real purpose. The new laws don’t only seek to protect Jewish Australians and other religious and ethnic groups from taking offence, but also the LGBTIQ+ and disabled communities.
In a multicultural society, individuals will disagree and even hate each other for despicable reasons. Litigating over hurt feelings is a shocking waste of resources. The bottom line is, as a society, we need to toughen up.
Adam Creighton is senior fellow and chief economist at the Institute of Public Affairs.
China port dilemma is caught in a rising storm
Darwin is not the only key site in which Beijing has taken strategic interest, as the federal government’s strategic ports dilemma just got a whole lot more complicated.
Israel acts to secure its border
The Trump administration may be peeved about Israel’s attacks on key targets in the Syrian capital, Damascus, but Benjamin Netanyahu remains wary of the new Syrian government.